Except for maybe spelling, or minor grammar corrections, I oppose this practice, by anybody who has the ability to do so. I post here mainly because I know that what I write will appear as I wrote it.

Due to previous distasteful experiences:

If I wanted to say something on the Oz Report now, I would post it here on HG.ORG, and post only a link to my message, there. Fool me once, shame on you . . .

If I wanted to publish anything related to flyin' in a magazine, I would post the original letter or article here, so anybody interested in editing my ideas would have a reference to my original copy. The public would also have this access.

I believe that the writer should have final approval of any article that they submit to the USA national HG/PG club magazine. If the editing is too heavy-handed, the writer should have the absolute option of withdrawing the article completely. While in the past this may have been awkward and slow as a policy, in the present days of the Internet, there is NO reason not to give us this option, in our own magazine. This will only happen if it is indeed OUR magazine, and not just the mouthpiece of some manufacturer or Railroad Committee, thinking that they know what is best for all of us. They do NOT!

I openly challenge the present editor and staff to make this policy official: the writer has final approval of their article, before publication. I, for one, might be tempted to publish something there, if this policy is adopted. I do not expect this offer to be agreeable to anybody with an agenda, or those ignorant of our club's intended purpose, but some pilots here may appreciate it.

I have been the Editor of the Utah HG newsletter, and I am aware of the constant need for good material. I built up a reserve of timeless articles, such as new-student experiences, technical know-how, and weather expertise, which could "fill-in" for the lack of more recent and timely material, sometimes. Even using Snail-Mail, I somehow managed to edit (lightly) and get final approval for what was to be published, from the authors. I would have considered the Internet (and maybe a grammar checker) to be gifts from the gods, then.

AIRTHUG (Ryan Voight wrote:And have you read the contributing terms before submitting anything to the mag? If you feel change is due, it needs to start there... as it is now, editing an article to better serve the masses IS agreed upon when you submit it...

I do edit the Oz Report itself. I'm the editor after all. And a writer's word are not sacrosanct, as far as I'm concerned as an editor. I'd rather that my writers not look like idiots. You can do that on your own in the forums here and there.

red wrote:Davis,

You do not need to remember; I will be happy to do that for you.

The writer's words are indeed sacrosanct, and your viewpoint is the crux of this issue. I can not fix that, and I am not willing to try. What you see here is called voting with the feet.

You are not responsible for making sense from idiot posts, and you are responsible, if your changes make people look like idiots. Creating controversy where none exists does not generate truth, it only generates noise.

All IMHO.

I have to agree with Red here. But it's unfortunate that Red - and most other hanggliding.org members - don't know how many posts are being edited on hanggliding.org. They also don't know how many people have had their posts permanently changed to "silence" by the practice of banning. Both changed posts and banned pilots are invisible to most members of hanggliding.org.

BobK wrote:Jack Axaopoulos also recently made an analogy that hanggliding.org was like a coffee shop where he could kick out anyone who talks about anything he doesn't want them to talk about. But what coffee shop owner monitors every discussion and expels patrons for even mentioning the U.S. Hawks? None.(from the thread Liberating Public Land Link

Starbucks arrests: Who gets to decide whether you’re a patron or a trespasser? Link

magentabluesky wrote:Who gets to decide whether you’re a patron or a trespasser?

For public land (like Torrey Pines, Dockweiler, Point of the Mountain), we are given rights by law.

For private organizations (like USHPA and hanggliding.org) the owners can make that decision ... but not without consequences.

When USHPA's misguided leadership expelled me they created a huge problem for any governmental agencies that had relied on USHPA as a fair arbiter of pilot skills. When Jack Axaopoulos bans people from his "living room" for personal reasons he undermines his site's function as a gathering place of ideas.

Both have consequences when those actions are known. One of my primary goals is to make those actions more widely known so that those organizations can be viewed appropriately.

There's nothing wrong with USHPA expelling who they want as long as land owners know that USHPA can't be trusted as a fair arbiter of flight skills.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with Jack banning who he wants as long as pilots know that hanggliding.org can't be trusted as a comprehensive representation of hang gliding information.

Both organizations can make their choices, but It's important that those choices are known and not covered up. Unfortunately, that's currently not the case, and both organizations have active misrepresentation campaigns to hide (or divert attention from) the injustices they've committed. I applaud those who make an effort to expose these misrepresentations.

Wow Bob, I find it truly amazing you can present a non partisan analysis of the subject at hand when affected so deeply.

While the public entities have noble intentions for safety in deferring to the USHPA’s rating system, when a member is expelled for political reasons and not for safety violations, the individual is being denied their right to the airspace unjustly.

Michael Grisham wrote:Wow Bob, I find it truly amazing you can present a non partisan analysis of the subject at hand when affected so deeply.

Thanks. Sometimes I do better than others.

Michael Grisham wrote:While the public entities have noble intentions for safety in deferring to the USHPA’s rating system, when a member is expelled for political reasons and not for safety violations, the individual is being denied their right to the airspace unjustly.

Thanks Michael. Your clarity of thought here is indisputable.

Michael Grisham wrote:The question becomes, what is the solution for the public entities?

How about this concept ...

Declaration of Independence wrote:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ...

Just as with SCUBA diving, public entities should come to understand that there are multiple agencies which can provide reliable pilot rating information. This alone would eliminate almost all of USHPA's abuses. If pilots could have simply walked away from USHPA all these years, then USHPA would have cleaned up its act long ago. It's gotten this bad because USHPA has held a monopoly and so many flying sites now require USHPA membership. There has simply been no alternative.

Fortunately, things are changing. The US Hawks has been honoring USHPA ratings for years now. Unfortunately, we've been so demonized by USHPA (and Jack Axaopoulos - see topic title), that a lot of pilots have been hesitant to seek US Hawks ratings (see Microsoft's famous "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" memo).

But now - just in recent weeks - a new rating agency has appeared (thanks to USHPA's founding member Joe Faust). The new USHGRS is also issuing ratings based on existing ratings, and they will be much more difficult for USHPA (or Jack) to demonize.

So one solution that I see is spreading the word about these alternative rating systems. These alternative ratings should be seen as more fair and more responsible than USHPA's politically-motivated ratings. There's a topic about this on hanggliding.org, and I think pilots should proudly announce their USHGRS ratings in that topic and in their signature lines. After all, Jack hasn't banned any mention of the USHGRS ... yet.

Bob Kuczewski wrote:There's a topic about this on hanggliding.org, and I think pilots should proudly announce their USHGRS ratings in that topic and in their signature lines. After all, Jack hasn't banned any mention of the USHGRS ... yet.

I guess I spoke too soon. Jack has banned Joe Faust and has programmed his entire forum to change ALL references of ushgrs.org to some other URL (like involuntarylist.org).

It is unbelievable to me that hang glider pilots will allow themselves to be told what they can and can't say. It is unbelievable to me that people like "Red" will complain about Davis or USHPA editing their posts (see quote of Red above), but will quietly allow Jack to do it to others.

Bob Kuczewski wrote:It is unbelievable to me that hang glider pilots will allow themselves to be told what they can and can't say. It is unbelievable to me that people like "Red" will complain about Davis or USHPA editing their posts (see quote of Red above), but will quietly allow Jack to do it to others.

It is believable to me because it is going on, and has been going on from day one. It is believable because there isn't enough push back. More exposure to the problem is needed. Intergalactic indictment headlines saturating every venue with Jack Axaopoulos' name plastered as many places as possible. Jack Axaopoulos wants to lie and bury his crimes down the memory hole. An equal and opposite effort is what he doesn't want to see. Memes should be produced that call him out for the cowardly actions he commits.

A public action equal to what USHPA, as an organization, did to you, Bob. Public condemnation via committee hearings/discussions/evidence because the cowardly actions and lies of Jack Axaopolous are crimes against all of us. Jack Axaopolous' dirty lies and propaganda about Joe Faust are detrimental to all of us that wish to see Joe's efforts succeed. Jack Axaopolous' is stepping on my toes and his cowardly actions are a detriment to all of us.

Joe's generous efforts and labor are a blessing and a benefit to us all. Those that impede and sabotage those efforts in such a dishonest fashion should answer to all of us that are negatively affected.

Indictment and a trial for the weasel Jack Axaopolous. Memes. Public chastisement. Jack is a coward that wants to bury the truth. We need to amplify the truth.

And not to forget Doug Marley. What a dishonest newbie he has turned out to be. Totally scripted and totally fake. I used to think all hg pilots were above average people but I was wrong.